You always seem to be able to detach yourself from the issues, which lets you remain objective.
If it's a skill, it's one learned though repeated beatings and jumping to conclusions (and discovering, like the coyote, that was over a ravine).
The problem with the proposed "solutions" is there is no evidence they will reduce crime.
What is nearly universally not recognized is that creating a new law
creates new crimes, which
creates new criminals. New laws always
cause more crime.
How do you reconcile restricting people under 21 when it comes to firearms while acknowledging that they are mature enough to vote, drive, serve in the military and make decisions on their gender identity when they are 8-9 years old. You can’t with any sincerity have it both ways.
Politically, the people at the bottom edge of the age spectrum are easiest to disenfranchise. They typically have the least investment in the political process, and represent the least "cost" to the political class.
The most dangerous age cohort for drunk driving is 40-45, but, it was far easier to demonize 18-21 and disenfranchise that age group, It's not like the 18 y/o were going to stop donating to political causes.
So, too, with firearms. 18-21 will own the least quantity of firearms, they will not have the high-paying jobs that make fat political donations, or sway those with strong political influence. So, it's easy to pitch them overboard, politically.
One of the major differences between firearms and politics is that firearms are concrete, objective, finite; politics is not. Politics are subjective, ephemeral, appearance over substance. This is also why mixing political discussion with firearms discussion so often flies off the rails--there are functionally no rails to define things.